Call me a snob but unless the glass is made by Canon, Nikon or Zeiss you're better off without it.

Ok, you're a snob. Actually, maybe you aren't aware that the Canon UV PROTECT filters used to be (and maybe still are) OEM'd by Tiffen, and from one of the lower-end Tiffen lines at that. I'll take a B+W Schott glass filter over a 'Canon' filter any day of the week.

Thanks for the review, Justin. The 85L certainly produces some amazing images, but to me just isn't worth the tradeoffs (expense, slow AF, etc...) I do have the 85mm f/1.8, and, although it is a great lens, it just doesn't come out of my bag that often. I typically reach for either the 100L or 135L. But because it (85mm f/1. is a relatively low expense, I hold onto it. I wouldn't feel that same about a $2K lens. Some nice portraits in there, though.

Thanks for the review, Justin. The 85L certainly produces some amazing images, but to me just isn't worth the tradeoffs (expense, slow AF, etc...) I do have the 85mm f/1.8, and, although it is a great lens, it just doesn't come out of my bag that often. I typically reach for either the 100L or 135L. But because it (85mm f/1. is a relatively low expense, I hold onto it. I wouldn't feel that same about a $2K lens. Some nice portraits in there, though.

I agree. As I have stated in other posts, I owned this lens and sold it for the Sigma 85 f/1.4. It's half the cost, the focus barrel is enclosed with a UV filter on, has superior AF, and comparable if not better IQ. Though bokeh is slightly better on the Canon the difference is not a $1000 better.

Have you had the chance to compare the Canon to the Sigma or other 85mm primes?

Have you had the chance to compare the Canon to the Sigma or other 85mm primes?

That was actually the biggest thing I found lacking in the review...a lens like this, with such a huge disparity in price for such little extra...well, it practically screams for a head-to-head comparison. A battle of the 85s, if you will.

i find that that lens just doesn't do it for me..the images are very flat of color, and the fringing is just awful. The AF is utterly spectacular however. Ive been debating selling mine, and i think i will. Especially after i got the 70-200II, i think ive used it only once...and that was over a year ago.

A way to get good results would be to take a number of sequential shots of your subject, since a slight change in your posture could throw your intended focus point completely off.

I've always heard this referred to as "poor man's IS." Take a burst of several shots, and chances are good that one will catch you at the apex of your shaking.

Without implying that the 85L is anything other than a superlative lens, I have to put it alongside the 50L as Canon's two worst value lenses. Both the 85 f/1.8 and 50 f/1.4 outperform and often outright spank their bigger brothers in all sorts of ways more important for 90% of photographers, and there's very little the L lenses can do that the non-L counterparts can't.

Unless you actually need that extra half a stop in either case -- and damned few people do -- these lenses are a waste of money.

Of course, for those who really do need that extra half a stop (and, yes, there absolutely are those who do need it), or for those for whom a couple grand is pocket change, it's either a smart investment or a no-brainer.

But almost everybody else is better off in every meaningful way with the non-L versions.

Cheers,

b&

I don't disagree with you - one of the many reasons I don't own this lens myself... I just don't see the value (for my work).